http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-13/innocent-incarcerated-prisoners/55585176/1

Well, this is horrendously disgraceful, but not surprising. The justice department knows these people are innocent, could inform them, could actually actively seek to have them freed, but chooses not to.

Prosecutors seemingly have less and less interest in actually seeking out the guilty and punishing them, and more and more interest just in winning the case and putting/keeping people in jail, actual guilt be damned.

Knowingly letting an innocent man rot in jail is just as bad as doing things like hiding exculpatory evidence during the prosecution, IMO.

6/15/2012 11:37:17 AM

It sounds like disagreement between the state and federal over what should be illegal, and the federal has legal say over the case, but the state isn't obligated to correct the fact that they locked away people who fit what they wanted to consider a felony. It seems a little bit like state-level vigilantism.

6/15/2012 12:45:59 PM

I'm not commenting on the OP, but the thread title itself.

Dripping with sarcasm, of course.

6/15/2012 3:05:18 PM

Of course Eric Holder and his underlings don't give a shit about justice. He's made that clear for a while now.

6/15/2012 3:07:33 PM

It has next to nothing to do with Holder. I'm sure Alberto Gonzalez, Janet Reno, and John Ashcroft's justice department would have been equally disinterested.

The fact that they've not bothered to inform these folks that they're actually innocent of the federal crime they committed is pretty disgraceful. I can understand that they aren't actively seeking their release (although that would be ideal) considering that they surely have a huge workload, but at minimum inform the prisoners and let them work on it from there.

As bad as the justice department is, what does it say about our federal court system that being, you know, factually innocent of the charges you are imprisoned for isn't enough to merit you another appearance in court?

6/15/2012 3:35:35 PM

Suppose the 4th Circuit changed its opinion on the definition of felon from being based on the maximum sentence an individual actually faces for a crime to the maximum sentence any individual could face for the crime (i.e., the opposite of what's happened).

Could the government go back and charge those not previously considered felons?

6/15/2012 11:36:29 PM

ex post facto charges are specifically forbidden by the Constitution. ex post fact exoneration is not.

6/16/2012 2:07:34 PM

...except the law itself didn't change.

6/16/2012 2:46:24 PM

in effect, it did, though, which is what matters. further, if the statute of limitations has expired, then the question is moot.

6/16/2012 4:04:34 PM

McCullum's conviction* and sentence was consistent with the law. The facts of his case have not changed, there is no new evidence, and there was no prosecutorial miscoduct (which we unfortunately see a lot of other examples of).

The law did not change. There was no legislative action to amend or otherwise change the law. The court did not strike down the law McCullum was found guilty of breaking. What has changed is the court's interpretation of what it means to be a felon with respect to possessing a firearm in North Carolina (an interpretation that had existed for the previous 20 years).

Is a change in the interpretation of a law retroactive?

* McCullum actually plead guilty, which probably screws him no matter what.

6/16/2012 5:39:17 PM

and yet, we must admit that the interpretation of the law has certainly changed. If the interpretation has changed, then, in effect, the law has changed. the text may be the same, but the application is different. He would not even be charged under the very same text of the law today, and we even see that current prosecutions are being pulled and dropped. That should count for something, don't you think?

it's hard to feel bad for most of these guys, I won't lie about that.

6/16/2012 5:51:48 PM

Oh, there's no doubt that a lot of these people are probably bad human beings. However, even with that you would think that being, you know, innocent of the crime you are sitting in jail for committing should be enough of a legal reason to get you an appeal or some kind of legal recourse.

It's a shitty situation.

6/16/2012 6:01:50 PM

^^ I'm not sure 'in effect' has the legal meaning you're looking for.

^ I'm also not sure McCullum is actually 'innocent of the crime'. At the time he was convicted, his actions were, in fact, illegal. If a law (or interpretation of a law) changes after one has been convicted and exhausted all appeals (i.e., 'the case is closed'), is that person still guilty (assuming the change is favorable to the person)? Does one become automatically innocent? Should one become automatically innocent? Is that something we want?

McCullum is definitely in a shitty situation and I wish him the best. But, this is not the egregious Justice Department behavior you are looking for [/handwave].

6/17/2012 7:20:30 PM

So if a law changes, is someone who was previously found guilty now eligible for exoneration?

If so, I don't see why the same wouldn't be applied to a change in application/interpretation of the law. The person was charged under one interpretation of the law, which apparently was found to be incorrect, thus "corrected". To me, it sounds essentially like the law "changed", to me.

I know that the current legal explanation/definition may not represent that; however, the above is what I think should occur.

Quote :

" He would not even be charged under the very same text of the law today, and we even see that current prosecutions are being pulled and dropped. That should count for something, don't you think?"

I think this is the key. If the person committed the same actions now, would they be charged? If the answer is no, then I think the person should be eligible for exoneration.

[Edited on June 18, 2012 at 9:55 AM. Reason : .]

6/18/2012 9:53:51 AM

This thread is confusing b/c people keep talking about a single offense.

Quote :

"The legal issues underlying their situation are complicated, and are unique to North Carolina. But the bottom line is that each of them went to prison for breaking a law that makes it a federal crime for convicted felons to possess a gun. The problem is that none of them had criminal records serious enough to make them felons under federal law."

The case sounds more like the state of NC said "yo dawg, I heard you like felonies, so I made your crime a felony and made it a felony for you have a gun after your last felony. Now you can felony while you felony."

I can't believe what I just wrote... looks like a fair portrayal of the case.



[Edited on June 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/18/2012 10:34:11 AM

Quote :

"looks like a fair portrayal of the case"

eh...

North Carolina has a sliding scale where the maximum punishment for a crime is dependent upon the offender's previous record.

The federal government has a separate law making it illegal for felons to possess a gun. The federal government defines a felon as anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The crime may be a state or federal crime.

In the cases discussed in the OP's article, the federal government charged individuals with illegally possessing a weapon based on state crimes they had committed where the maximum possible sentence on North Carolina's sliding scale is greater than one year. However, the maximum actual sentence those individuals faced (based on their actual criminal history) was less than one year. Until a few years ago, federal court held that the maximum possible sentence should be used as the basis for defining felon; now that same court has decided the maximum actual sentence should be used.

This isn't really a North Carolina problem at all. It's the federal government not liking the punishment for state-level crime (though I'm sure all fifty states have used the law to send people away for longer than would be possible otherwise).

While I'd personally like to see McCullum go free, I'm not sure that's the right answer. The next court decision may not be so favorable to the defendant. The court decision or legislative action after that may reduce a fracking company's liability for damage already done.

Nah, that'll never happen.

6/19/2012 2:18:51 AM

Quote :

""yo dawg, I heard you like felonies, so I made your crime a felony and made it a felony for you have a gun after your last felony. Now you can felony while you felony.""

6/21/2012 12:15:27 AM